Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7649713
^^ It seems you really get the point, but miss it completely.
Reviews are for lots of different people. That's why (like you said) good reviews compare/show the results at different apertures.
The rant is less about reviews, and more about people's opinions, which often seem to revolve around wide open comparisons, for reasons that I do not understand.
As for the 16-35 vs 17-40 thing. There is a BIG price difference between those lenses too. But that aside.
I'm rather interested in what this difference is, besides, of course, size, weight, cost, filter size, and, I think, weather sealing.
The 16-35 is a better lens for people who work inside more, the 17-40 is better for people who don't so much (ie they are for different people).
I disagree. From what I've heard, the 16-35 / 2.8L II is better all the way around in terms of IQ, inside or outside. But it costs more and is larger and heavier, and the IQ differences are negligible for stopped down shooting. So, if it's size, weight, and cost that make the 17-40 / 4L the better lens for some people, then, of course, I have no argument.
But for those that say, for example, that the 70-200 / 4L IS is "better than" the 70-200 / 2.8L IS because it is sharper wide open, I just don't get that. If, instead, they said, "The 70-200 / 4L IS is better for me than the 70-200 / 2.8L IS, because I would never use the 70-200 / 2.8L IS wide open since it's too soft for me at f/2.8, and is much heavier and more expensive than the f/4L IS" then I'd totally get that. However, that's not what people say, or even imply.